Convergence without diffusion? A comparative analysis of the choice of performance indicators in tax administration and social security
| Author | Christian van Stolk,Kai Wegrich |
| Published date | 01 December 2008 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852308098470 |
| Date | 01 December 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Convergence without diffusion? A comparative analysis of
the choice of performance indicators in tax administration
and social security
Christian van Stolk and Kai Wegrich
Abstract
This article cross-nationally compares the choice of performance indicators in two
core fields of state activity, tax administration and social security. Exploring the
selection of performance indicators in six countries (Australia, Canada, Nether-
lands, Sweden, the UK and the US), the article analyses the driving forces for the
choice of particular indicators in the context of national administrative traditions
and more recent reform agendas on the one hand and the trend towards inter-
national exchange and ‘benchmarking’ on the other hand. The article explores the
relative significance and interaction of different driving forces of choice and how
this shapes the development and application of performance indicators. To that
end, it combines instutionalist approaches with the literature on the mechanisms
and effects of international exchange and policy diffusion. Our analysis suggests
that existing broad similarities are linked to similarities in core activities and values
underlying contemporary public service reforms. Variation in the choice of per-
formance indicators (PIs) reflects domestic factors such as governance arrange-
ments through which broad reform trends are filtered. These arrangements also
mediate any direct international learning.
Points for practitioners
This article aims to contribute to the debate around how organizations could learn
from the experience of others in designing performance indicators and manage-
ment systems. Potential for cross-national and cross-sectional learning is particu-
larly high in categories where a particular organization has not yet developed
Christian van Stolk is Senior Analyst at RAND Europe, Cambridge and Kai Wegrich is Professor of
Public Management, Hertie School of Governance, Berlin.
Copyright © 2008 IIAS, SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore)
Vol 74(4):589–614 [DOI:10.1177/0020852308098470]
International
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
performance indicators but others have done so already. But any cross-reading
from other countries’ choices should take into account that the definition and use
of performance indicators is to a substantial extent driven by domestic institutional
traditions, governance arrangements and wider national approaches to perform-
ance management. The design of performance indicators should in particular take
into account the accountability relations in which agencies are embedded.
Keywords: domain- and paradigm-related factors, domestic and international
driving forces, international benchmarking, social security, targets, tax administra-
tion, typology of performance indicators
Introduction
The perceived shift of public service accountability towards outputs and outcomes
rather than inputs appears to be one driver behind the development and application
of performance indicators (PIs) as part of performance measurement and manage-
ment systems. Any attempt to hold a particular organization accountable for its ‘per-
formance’ would be futile without indicators that allow measuring performance for
purposes of comparing over time and across jurisdictions. The development of viable
performance indicators can therefore be regarded as the building block of any
performance management system. From a design perspective, any system of per-
formance indicators has to conform to some standards and design criteria, such as
that the indicators reflect relevant aspects of the respective organizational or pro-
gramme activity rather than minor but easy accessible aspects or that the indicator(s)
represent this activity in a coherent way. In that sense, the design of performance
indicators would be driven by the contingencies of the respective organization or task
environment. Wilson’s well-known distinction between production, procedural, craft
and coping organizations points to the differences between agencies and their tasks
in terms of measurability of outputs and outcomes (Wilson, 1989). The development
of performance indicators and management systems would be most suitable and
fruitful if both outputs and outcomes are measurable (and a causal relation between
those can be established).
These design criteria and organizational contingencies could, however, only be
one of a range of driving forces shaping the choice of performance indicators. Much
has been written on those factors shaping the adoption of particular public manage-
ment reform tools, ranging from the individual preferences of bureau-shaping
bureaucrats to the power of ideas or from the isomorphic mechanisms facilitated by
intensified exchange and transfer across jurisdictions to the robustness of domestic
institutional structures. In this article, we explore the issue of choice of performance
indicators and the underlying driving forces in a cross-national and -sectoral compar-
ative perspective. The interest lies particularly in the effects of international exchange
and transfer and how influential this increasingly prevalent facet of the administrative
reform discourse is compared to more domestic variables such as national adminis-
trative traditions and more recent reform agendas.
To that end, the article takes on a rather broad comparative approach, encom-
passing six countries and two sectors. With tax administration and the social security
590 International Review of Administrative Sciences 74(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial